|
So, it's hard to watch all this without giving a little thought. For those who have also done so, maybe "we" need to come up with another measuring stick? Yes, I know that it's better television to play two boards of questions with standard TV rules, but that's clearly not the best way to identify a champion. And the buzzer-timing thing is clearly more art than science, I think that's pretty clear.
Here's my general thinking:
-Each contestant gets a full complement of categories and dollar values, generated by the usual process (with the appropriate exclusions of audio/video, etc)
-Given the category and dollar values only, he must indicate whether he would buzz in immediately, in advance of really processing the question
-If not, he then gets to see the question, and then give an indication of whether he would offer an answer after a reasonable processing time
-Presumably, you work out some sort of thresholds for Watson or another AI competitor to indicate whether it would answer -- I think the processing time is essentially moot, so really only the first question would be relevant, I think
-Based on a weighted scoring (more to those indicated as an auto-buzz-in, less to those where he wants to read/process the clue), you can then come up with some sort of score for the battery of questions
Something like that serve as a decent enough starting point? (Haven't thought through whether the presence of an instant-evaluator competitor that doesn't need the second tier of consideration corrupts the competition inherently here)
|